IMMIGRATION DEBATE HEATING UP

The debate over the proposed amendments to the immigration legislation, which were cleverly buried in the Budget document, are the hottest topic in town (did the Feds take a page from the US Congress, where they do this all the time?). Some organizations applaud the changes, others condemn it. See, for example, Toronto Star article below (unsurprisingly, that newspaper is always "worried" about "families" and "humanitarian" cases, not about economics and costs). While I do not like the fact that the government has chosen to sidestep the long overdue debate over immigration, which is always a political hot potato, I think that, in practical terms, the changes are badly needed, that we need to start emphasizing the type of migration that the market forces require, and stop processing immigrants who will not work in Canada and will not integrate into the labour force. I also think that, unless the opposition is willing to bring down the government and risk an election that they may lose because the economy is doing well, the changes will become law....this train has left the station. The way this has been done, however, points to the FEAR that possesses politically-correct obsessed politicians who refuse to have a national debate over immigration....which could result in something quite nasty, as the recent hearings in the Province of Quebec over "reasonable accommodation" have shown.



Immigration reform plan worries bar association

TheStar.com

Puts too much power in hands of officials, legal group says

April 03, 2008
Bruce campion-smith
Ottawa bureau chief

OTTAWA–Canada's immigration system risks being dictated by "ministerial fiat" rather than transparent regulations under a sweeping new law proposed by the federal government, a legal group warns.

While the Tory goal of reducing the backlog of would-be-immigrants is "laudable," Immigration Minister Diane Finley hasn't made the case why her dramatic reforms of the immigration system are the right solution, said Alex Stojicevic, chair of the immigration section of the Canadian Bar Association.

"We fail to see why these are necessary to achieve the government's aims," he said, calling the existing system relatively transparent and objective.

Under the proposal, Finley would have the power to issue "instructions" to her department to give priority to immigrants whose job skills are in demand in Canada. At the same time, she would have the power to refuse applications in other categories.

But Stojicevic suggested the reforms risk putting too much power in the hands of department officials.

"She wants to bring some sanity to these processing backlogs. She wants to try to address, where she can, economic priorities. We just don't see this change as necessary to accomplish that goal," he said.

"That really should be the job of regulation. The system should be transparent. It shouldn't operate by ministerial fiat. And that's what we're talking about here, a kind of decree system," he said.

Stojicevic also questioned why the changes were tucked into the government's budget bill, rather than proposed in separate legislation.

"Why is this in the budget bill? ... It shouldn't be there. It should be debated in the public forum," he said.

The proposals have drawn flak from opposition parties who accused Finley of "cherry-picking" the queue of would-be immigrants.

"We cannot fix the immigration backlog by giving the minister powers to pick her favourite immigrants. We should not fix the backlog by capping immigration levels. This is not a solution to the problem," deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said in question period.

But Conservatives are daring election-shy Liberals to do more than criticize proposed immigration reforms and actually vote down the measures in the Commons, even if it means defeating the minority government.

"They can debate it as long as they want. They can do what they like on the bill. They can even stand in their place and vote against it if they do not like it," Government House Leader Peter Van Loan said.


Today, the New Democrats will introduce a motion urging MPs to oppose the government's budget implementation bill – and the immigration proposals in it.

"The principle of this bill is anti-democratic. ... It gives all the power to the minister to help people jump the queue. It's not accountable, it's not transparent," said NDP MP Olivia Chow (Trinity-Spadina).

However, Finley warned that if "significant" action isn't taken now, the backlog will stretch to 10 years.

"What we are trying to do is make it possible for more immigrants to come to this country and for them to get here sooner. ... We need families to be reunited. Employers need these people now," she said.